Before buying my Dad's D30 off him I borowed it for a week to try it out. He had the 1.8 50mm USM lens and I was so impressed. As most of my important shoots are portraits in recording studio situations I have to work with mostly poor lighting. The 1.8 50mm gave very good results on long exposures with natural (light bulb and daylight) light but when I bought the camera was given the f3.5 28-105 lens he had. To be honest, it's just not cutting it in this environment. Outdoors in good light it's good. I try to stay away from flash if I can as that's what I like.

So, I am looking for a good prime lens for these shoots and am thinking about the 50mm f1.4 canon USM lens at around 250. It's quite a bit more than the 1.8 (can get the 1.8 for 50 quid at 7dayshop) so wondered if anyone here has any experience of the two and have any opinions if it's going to make much difference. If there's not much in it I may as well just get the 50mm 1.8 for 50 quid, that's how much a tank full of Optimax is costing me these days.

Then again, is the 50mm the wrong lens and should I be looking more at 85+? Problem is these environments can be cramped so can't go for anything too large.

As you can tell I'm a newbie so any help really is appreciated!

Cheers!

:)

Mike

Mike,

I've had both the 50mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.4. Both are great lenses for different reasons. The 1.8 is great becuase it is so sharp past f2.0 and so cheap it should be the law that you have to have one.

The 1.4 on the other hand isn't cheap but is still worth every penny. Sure it isn't much faster than the 1.8, but that little bit can make all the difference, especially in low light. It is also sharper still, solid, quiet and very fast focusing. The aperture blade design also means the "bokeh" (hate that word), i.e. the out of focus bits look pretty as well. Only downside is that it isn't suitable for IR photography as it is specially coated.

So, if you don't have a 50mm lens, I would say get the 1.4. Or if you can find one (discontinued) and have the money, the f1.0 isn't bad either but not actually as sharp a the 1.4.

But also look at the 85mm primes. Some of these are very sharp and very good in low light. But as a portrait lens the 50mm are just as well suited to the D30 sensor size and also easier to shoot with in confined spaces.

Cheers

Ian

Thanks Ian, that's the kind of info I was hoping for :)

Mike

I believe the 1.8 Mk I has a metal lens mount, which might be worth getting if you can find one s/h. The current Mk II has a plastic one.

I have the 1.4, but the DoF is so slim wide open that I rarely if ever use it that way unless I'm wanting to do special effects. I've also had to have my 1.4 repaired after the AF mechanism got stuck - they told me I must have knocked it, but I don't remember doing so. I suspect it may be a bit fragile.

Given the choice again I think I'd save the money and get the 1.8.

Another vote for the 1.8, see some other opinions at http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=172

The 85 f1.8 is also supposed to be a fantastic lens, and would make a great combination with the 50: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=32&sort=7&cat=2&page=2

I have the 50mm 1.8 and the 85mm. In a confined space the 50mm is better, especially for studio work when you need full body shots. The 85mm is fantastic for full frame head shots or portraits. (With a 10D it becomes close to a 150mm lens so you need a lot of space to get anything bigger)

I've read a comparison somewhere that actually thinks the 1.8 is better than the 1.4 , 1.4 suffers from barrel distortion.

As you already have the 50mm 1.8 I'd agree with the others, the 1.4 isn't worth spending the money on... use it for another lens and give yourself more options.
If you're working in cramped environments, then a 24, 28 or 35 mm prime lens is worth getting, or as mentioned the 85mm would be ideal on a D30 for tighter portraits. An EF 28mm f1.8 would be an ideal second lens, if you didn't want to to go for a longer 85/100 mm, and would give you a greater range of options.

Gareth

Sorry...misread your post, I thought you had the 50mm f1.8 with the camera as well, in which case I'd still agree with the others and suggest its the best option compaired with the 1.4.....put the money you'd save towards my previous suggestions.

I had a 50mm f/1.8 mk1 and now have a 50mm f/1.4. The f/1.4 is sharper, has less chromatic aberration (colour fringing) and definately does NOT have any significant barrel/pin cushion distortion.

If I were honest, I'd have to say that the f/1.4 is probably not £200 better than the f/1.8 - the build quality is not great and it is not a true ring USM lens (it uses a micro-usm motor, even though it full-time manual focus). However, I wouldn't swap back either.

Also, like Andy, I mashed the AF mechanism in mine (although I did drop mine from waist height onto a granite floor - with a camera body attached to it!). I think that, because the AF mechanism effectively racks the whole double-gaussian optical assembly back and forth, it is quite susceptible to the front of the lens beng bashed, or otherwise having pressure applied to it.

Brilliant! Thanks for all the advice. Have been browsing Fred Miranda's site, now have settled on getting the 1.8 50mm lens first then the 28. When I've saved up enough I'll get the 70-200 L for the outdoor work. I'll keep an eye out for the MK1.

Thanks :D

Mike